Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This case arose when Associates First Capital Corporation (Associates) purchased integrated risk policies from Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's of London (Lloyd's), the primary insurer, and nine excess insurers. Pursuant to the integrated risk policies, Citigroup, Inc. (Citigroup), as successor-in-interest to Associates, timely notified the insurers of two actions filed within the policy period and made claims for coverage. Initially, all of the insurers denied coverage, but later, Lloyd's settled with Citigroup. After the parties filed motions for summary judgment, the district court dismissed Citigroup's claims for coverage. The court affirmed the denial of coverage and held that the plain language of the insurers' policies (Federal, Steadfast, S.R., and St. Paul) dictated that their coverage did not attach when Citigroup settled with Lloyd's and that Citigroup's claim against another insurer (Twin City) was time barred.

Plaintiff (relator) filed a qui tam complaint under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3730, against defendants, alleging that they participated in a fraudulent scheme where the durable medical equipment (DME) supplier allowed the nursing home to keep a portion of the reimbursement from Medicare in return for a guarantee that the nursing home would buy all of its DME from that supplier. The district court subsequently dismissed relator's action on the ground that it violated the public disclosure provisions of the FCA. Relator appealed, arguing that this suit was not based on public disclosures and that he was an original source of the information on which his suit was based. The court held that because relator's action included no allegations specific to defendants, but merely repeated a general description of fraud easily available in several government documents, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Petitioner, a skilled nursing facility that participated in the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs, petitioned for review of the final decision of the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) finding that petitioner was in substantial noncompliance with regulations covering skilled nursing facilities, and affirming civil monetary penalties and denial of payment for new admissions. Finding that the DAB's decisions were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, the court dismissed the petition for review.

Defendant appealed his sentence for illegal reentry following deportation where the district court applied an enhancement based on defendant's prior conviction for theft. Defendant argued that his prior conviction was not an aggravated felony because his sentence was reduced to a term of less than one year. The court held that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement where a term of imprisonment included the suspended portion of the sentence and defendant need not have actually served any time. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendants appealed from a district court's order confirming an arbitration award where plaintiffs, six business entities, claimed to have been defrauded by defendants. At issue was whether the arbitration panel had exceeded its jurisdiction by rendering an award against defendants because they had never consented to arbitration. The court reversed the district court's order because under ordinary principles of contract and agency law, defendants, as the CEO and CFO of the defendant corporations, were not personally bound by the arbitration agreements their corporations entered into. Therefore, the court held that the arbitration panel lacked jurisdiction to render an award against defendants.

Defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. At issue was whether defendant's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to subpoena or secure the presence of defendant's alibi witness at trial. The court held that in light of the Supreme Court's recent holding in Cullen v. Pinholster, which restricted the court's review in these cases strictly to the contents of the state-court record, the state court reasonably determined that defendant's assistance of counsel was not ineffective and therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief.

Defendant appealed from his sentence after being found guilty by a jury on thirteen counts of using a cellular telephone to make bomb threats. At issue was whether the district court erroneously refused to group all thirteen counts of the indictment into a single group for sentencing purposes pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3D1.2. The court held that the district court correctly applied the guidelines where the court found no error in the district court's conclusion that there were multiple victims of defendant's offenses.

Defendant pled guilty to illegally reentering the country after having been deported and was sentenced to 51 months imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's imposition of a sixteen-level sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. The court held that defendant's previous Colorado criminal conviction for unlawful sexual contact was a "crime of violence" and therefore, affirmed the district court's imposition of the sixteen-level enhancement.